Destroyed for a Lack of Knowledge

We are living in an interesting period of time which has been unknown to the many generations which has come before. It seems like a new Dark Age is upon us where traditional Bible-based Christianity is systematically being phased out by a more progressive liberal spin, by Social Justice Crusaders trying to meld Christianity with academic racial philosophy, or by evangelical atheism. Where are the voices of Bible-believing Christians in a time like this? It seems like too many Christians are either hiding or compromising at alarming rates. On my social media feeds, I receive constant links to blog posts about how the old ways of Christianity are either too harsh or too hateful for different groups to bear. It seems the Word is not as important as the feelings of individuals.

The Liberal World Order: What is Really Causing It's Collapse

It has been some time since I have last written here at the Geek’s Guide to Christianity. Much has happened in my life, most of which has been been positive, and now I am back just in time to weigh in on the current excitement in Great Britain and Europe. Of course, I am speaking about Brexit. 

A Psalm of God's Brilliance Seen within His Creation

My heavenly Father, the omnipotent Creator, 

whose thoughts on all of the Earth are equal with your machinations? 

You have stretched out the firmament in equations 

and, in formulas, you have developed the processes of life. 

In Your wisdom, oh Lord, You have written the genetic codes

and in Your understanding You have set the universal constants. 

Humanity thinks himself to be something

and attempts to imagine a cosmos without Your intelligence;

yet, does mankind not know 

that he follows the same rules You have set up to govern physical existence? 

 The microscopic complexities speak to Your brilliance, 

the vastness of the universe speaks to Your magnificence. 

Oh Lord, there is no scientist on Earth 

who exhibits intellectual abilities comparable to Your knowledge. 

You have designed creation in a form of completion 

but human design must start from the inception of an idea.

Oh heavenly Father,You deserve constant recognition. 

You have created the human mind with the ability to understand mathematics.

You deserve the utmost respect.

You have blessed humanity with a comprehension of biology. 

Thank you Father for the mercy you have bestowed upon Your creation.

May you always be praised.  

   

Where Have All the Good Guys Gone?

The unfortunate attacks on Charlie Hebdo have brought out quite a bit of emotions and viewpoints to the forefront of international discourse. Many media outlets have come out in support of the magazine, broadcasting its sacrilegious cover, showing solidarity against terrorism. It seems like some on the Left are finally waking up to the brutal nature of these agents of evil, but I must ask: What took them so long?!

Terrorists who have shared the killers’ ideals have been killing people as far as I can remember. In 1983, terrorists bombed a military barracks in Beirut killing 299 American and French servicemen. They didn’t wake up then. Terrorists bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 killing six people and injuring 1,042 others. Leftists refused to wake up then. The American embassy in Kenya was bombed in 1998. Fatalities totaled 213 people who paid the ultimate price and, yet, the Left did not wake up. In 2000, the USS Cole was bombed in a suicide attack killing 17 sailors; still, nothing.  September 11, 2001 woke up some for a little while; but, as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq heated up, many in the Left went back to their old ways. Opinions were largely unchanged after the London bombings in 2005 and 2007 and the brutal killing of a British soldier in 2013.  

Condemnation Theology: An Enemy of Christian Preparation

Part 3 in a 3 Part Series...

Part 1: There Comes a Time in a Person's Life...

Part 2: Oh How the Mighty Have Fallen!

It might seem peculiar to think that the doomed history of the first century Church and the bleeding of youth from the Christian culture have anything in common, but all will soon become clear. I mentioned in part one of the series that many parents and youth groups fail to cause their young to embrace a Christian identity due to a lack of preparation in both a knowledge of God’s Word and a development of a living, breathing relationship with the Heavenly Father. Throughout this article, we will explore the relationship aspect and the role condemnation plays in stunting our ability to see ourselves as children of God.

Oh How the Mighty Have Fallen!

Part 2 in a 3 Part Series 

Part 1: There Comes a Time in a Person's Life...

What do I mean by singling out a Christian zeal for the Law as a problem? Well, that and the condemnation of Christians which followed suit with such a doctrine led to the downfall of the first century Church. We see the beginnings of this downfall in Acts 15.

But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. –Acts 15:1-2

There Comes a Time in a Person's Life...

Part 1 in a 3 Part Series...

There is no question that the Church is facing dire circumstances with today’s youth. No matter how one looks at it, it is estimated that between 59% (Barna Group, 2013) and 70% (Stetzer, 2014) of young adults leave the faith right out of high school. Whether they come back to the Church is irrelevant to the fact that we tend to lose these precious individuals during one of the most pivotal moments in their lives. Psychosocial development as outlined by Erik Erikson defines the crisis of individuals between the ages of 12 and 18 years as identity vs. role confusion (McLeod, 2008). During this stage of development, McLeod (2008) observes of adolescents, “They explore possibilities and begin to form their own identity based upon the outcome of their explorations. Failure to establish a sense of identity within society (‘I don’t know what I want to be when I grow up’) can lead to role confusion.” Obviously, something is not clicking in the Church which is translating into a youth whose Christian role becomes confused between the ages of 18 and 19. This youth, in turn, cannot resist the lure of the big words and temptations perpetuated by the evangelical atheist crowd.

A Simple Answer for the Complex Universe

An oldie from my days writing for the Christian Apologetics Alliance. 

A recent article piqued my interest which has brought about much discussion between a whole host of people and me. This article, Can Science Disprove the Existence God? (sorry, the typo was in the title) by Natalie Wolchover, is essentially an interview of a theoretical physicist noting how advances in science are eliminating the evidence for design in our universe. However, I posit the question, “Do these advances really show random chance and tear away belief in God?”

God's Leadership in the Old Testament: A Loving Manager

Part 1: The Many Warnings of Zedekiah

Part 2: Humanity's Disobedience

What many individuals do not understand is that God was practicing the art of progressive discipline in management thousands of years before text books ever described the process. The act of progressive discipline as outlined by Heathfield (2014) is as follows: counseling or oral warning, verbal warning in employee’s file, suspension, and termination. Fallon and McConnell (2014) further add that documentation is key throughout the whole process to ensure a successful and legal process of discipline.

God's Leadership in the Old Testament: Humanity's Disobedience

Check out Part 1: The Many Warnings of Zedekiah

I like to call the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, the books of warning because they are filled with warnings against the kings and the people of Judah and Israel of what was about to befall them and even through all of this, God supplied a way to escape the fate he was foretelling through His prophets.

Therefore is the anger of the LORD kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand against them, and hath smitten them: and the hills did tremble, and their carcases were torn in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still. –Isaiah 5:25

God's Leadership in the Old Testament: The Many Warnings of Zedekiah

Richard Dawkins once wrote in his The God Delusion (2006), “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it…” I apologize for alluding to this man however unpleasant his views are, but he seems to be the self-appointed poster boy for all arguments against Christianity in this modern era. In 100 hundreds, if Christ has not returned yet, another man will be appointed by the adversary to do exactly the same as Dawkins does today and one constant will still remain, the Word of God.

Who Really are the Intolerant Ones?

“Many times, I have found atheists to be more tolerant than Christians.” Does this sentiment sound familiar? Chances are it does due to the fact that almost every Christian has said the statement at one time or another. I know exactly why we do too. It can be said to show solidarity with the unbeliever telling them we know we have some problems in the Church, it can come after a talk about intolerance (i.e. the Westboro Baptist Church, abortion clinic bomber) where we don’t know how else to defend our viewpoint, or we may say it because we know an atheist or agnostic who doesn’t seem so bad and we don’t want to rile him or her up. No matter the reason we state that atheists are more tolerant, it can be one of the most dangerous and damaging statements we can ever make.

America the Collectivist.

I have been reading Ian Toll’s book Pacific Crucible about the war in the Pacific from 1941-1942 and I came across an interesting fact. The Allied forces did not seem to think that Japan could train excellent pilots because of the lack of individualism exhibited within Japanese culture at the time. The Allies were very wrong of course, but this question of individualism had me thinking about life today in the United States. Can we still claim individualism as a strong trait in the country today? I would answer with an astounding, “No.” You might be thinking, “Whatever could you mean? School taught me that everyone is unique and special.” Yeah, they told me that when I was in elementary school too; however, I have come to same profound conclusion stated within The Incredibles, “When everyone’s special, no one will be.” This is a very true statement and one that amply puts the argument of individualism vs. collectivism square in the minds of the young and old alike (because, let’s face it, The Incredibles was a great movie enjoyed by all ages).

Still not convinced? Let’s look at how the education system in this country has been acting as of late toward those individuals who dare think differently or question the academic status quo or consensus. The first example is of a Columbia State Community College general psychology professor who forced her students to wear “Rainbow Coalition” pins and noted that anyone who opposed homosexuality is a bigot. Another example is the secret removal of a pro-life display by the University of Alabama. Yet another instance involves the bullying of a 15 year old high school student by teachers because of his conservative beliefs. The last incident involves a North Carolina teacher who said it was against the law to criticize president Obama in answer to opposition of her comments about the president. I could on and on with story after story, but you get the point. Coupled with the report by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) that the top 25 liberal arts colleges are guilty of restricting free speech, do any of these cases sound like they are meant to encourage free and individual thought? No, it sounds more like there is encouragement of support for only one world view and it definitely is not a view of freedom and liberty.

What does every one of these examples of educator intimidation have in common? The professors and teachers are all leftists. When looking up the definition for leftist on Wikipedia (I wouldn’t recommend it), I found the most ridiculous definition as one who supports social equality with the Right Wing supporting social inequality. Isn’t Wikipedia’s bias just wonderful?  Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the left wing as “the part of a political group that consists of people who support liberal or socialist ideas and policies.” Thus, a leftist is one who holds to this world view.

While the leftist might support social and economic equality, equality does not always correlate with the terms liberty or fairness. Government subsidies, themselves originated from left-leaning social programs, are even noted by Revkin (2010) in the New York Times as lacking fairness for certain energy firms while promoting others. Additionally, the Soviet Union sacrificed freedom and standard of living for its own version of “equality.” McClelland (2014) states that Communism under the Soviets failed to motivate the workers to produce enough goods to promote a high standard of living.       

It’s quite convenient that these leftist educators are in league with socialism. Vladimir Lenin, leader of the Bolshevik Revolution, stated, “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.” This same sentiment is being bandied about today as the leftists indoctrinate our children into collectivist drones to serve the statist agenda. The idea is to get them young so you’ll have them for life.

According to Biddle (2012), “Collectivism is the idea that the individual’s life belongs not to him but to the group or society of which he is merely a part, that he has no rights, and that he must sacrifice his values and goals for the group’s ‘greater good’” (para. 3). This is the opposite of individualism which promotes the idea that the life of the individual person belongs to himself or herself. In an individualistic society, a person is free to choose his or her own path regardless of the state’s desires.

Why mention collectivism in a discussion about socialist education? I mention it due to the fact that collectivism is the wood that fuels the fire of the social agenda. Without all of us being on the same page, socialism would crumble without the financial support of the agreeable and eager sheep. A socialist society needs the producers to provide money for the programs that assist the “disenfranchised.” This is the reason leftists like to trivialize the right wing competition by making their views seem evil and uncaring. “The Republican health plan is for old people to die.” “The Right hates the poor. “ “Christians just want to stone gays.” You don’t want old people to die, hate the poor, or want to stone homosexuals; so, the left seems like the way to go. However, none of those arguments are based in reality are really meant to shame you into buying into their propaganda.

This absolutist avenue of creating a guilty collective consciousness has worked so well for the Left that they have been organized against us with almost one central voice. One of the greatest blessings of the Right, free thought, can also prove to be its curse if we let it. All people situated within this spectrum tend to exhibit many different opinions which can divide as much as unite. We need to unite now more than ever because as Benjamin Franklin said, “We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately." 

Biddle, C. (2012). Individualism vs. collectivism: our future, our choice. The Objective Standard, 7(1). Retrieved from http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-spring/individualism-collectivism.asp.

McClelland, E. (2014).  Communism saved the American worker. Salon. Retrieved from http://www.salon.com/2014/04/01/communism_saved_the_american_worker_how_soviet_competition_raised_our_living_standards/.

Revkin, A.C. (2010, August 2). All’s not fair when it comes to energy subsidies. New York Times. Retrieved from http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/02/alls-not-fair-when-it-comes-to-energy-subsidies/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0.

 

 

        

Foot Place Self Directly In Mouth Featuring Pat Robertson

It's amazing that Pat Robertson has made it twice on my site in reference to things Christian leaders should never say. His rant went something like this:

Here, Robertson is attacking Ken Ham, the Creationist who just debated Bill Nye, about his belief in Young Earth Creationism (YEC). While I might have my own disagreements with Ham on the subject, though I would agree that macro-evolution is not real scientific inquiry, the last thing Pat Robertson should be doing is attacking him on such a huge platform. Interestingly, instead of taking issue with Bill Nye's comments mocking the Biblical Flood or asserting that the Bible is not a historically accurate account of the world, Robertson decides to attack Ham and his view of Creation.

Never mind the fact that Robertson's argument is filled with mistakes and ridiculous assumptions, the real issue is his willingness to give so much ammunition to our common enemies. His comments are already making the triumphant rounds through secular circles (you can see the disgusting truth here, here, and here). It's funny that these secularists will decry Pat on his views of homosexuality but will praise him in his assessment of evolution. Is Pat Robertson so naive to think that his comments wouldn't be interpreted in this fashion?

Unity is needed in the Church today, but all Pat Robertson has done is encourage more division by attacking a whole movement of Christianity.    

Trial-And-Error: Unthinking Process or Argument for Intelligence?

For my 100th post, I decided to finally finish something I've been working on for some time.

Trial-and-error is the process by which naturalistic evolution, or as The Free Dictionary puts it, “Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species,” is advanced. This is an idea Carl Sagan wrote about when discussing fossils, “The fossil record implies trial and error, the inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with a Great Designer (though not a Designer of a more remote and indirect temperament.)” Trial-and-error in evolutionary process is also supported by sites like What Is Life, who state, “Evolution works because it produces change through trial and error.” So, with so many Evolutionists and resources touting trial-and-error as natural selection’s mechanism, then why even question the contrary?

First we must ask the question, “What exactly constitutes trial-and-error?” The term is defined by Dictionary.com as “experimentation or investigation in which various methods or means are tried and faulty ones eliminated in order to find the correct solution or to achieve the desired result or effect.” Really, how else would evolution be able to work as it “finds” out which biological arrangements are going to work in the genetic scheme of things and which arrangements just won’t stand a chance? However, I believe the more time one spends thinking about this evolutionary process, the more it doesn’t make atheistic sense. Have you ever just sat down and thought about how complicated biological trial-and-error would be?

While doing research for this article I came upon a question in Yahoo! Answers about the lack of trial-and-error evidence in the fossil record. One of the answers was priceless as it explained that trial-and-error change involves very small changes such as slightly higher levels of hemoglobin. For those who don’t know, hemoglobin is a protein found in the red blood cells which carry oxygen throughout the body using the blood stream. Now, this got me thinking about what it would take to actually evolve hemoglobin to the levels we find today in the human body.

Let’s start with the normal concentration of hemoglobin in the blood of the average human at birth. According to Medscape, the normal concentration is a mean of 16.5 g/dL with a range of 14-24 g/dL. When the hemoglobin concentration starts deviating from the normal range, health problems start to occur. According to Medscape, a low hemoglobin level is categorized as anemia. As the concentration decreases to critical levels, the person is susceptible to congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction (heart attack), and stroke (Hemoglobin Test, 2011). High hemoglobin concentration is often a product of polycythemia (high volume of red blood cells in the blood) and is just as dangerous as anemia because the condition can lead to thrombosis (spontaneous clotting), congenital heart conditions, and stroke (Besa, 2012). Every one of these disease processes is lethal without the intervention of modern medical therapies.  

So, let’s explore the process by which the correct levels of hemoglobin in the human body were determined by evolutionary processes. There are many articles upon review which describe aspects of the evolution of hemoglobin (like this one); however, a literature review using the phrase hemoglobin and trial and error yielded no such description of the trial and error process in relation to hemoglobin. Thus, we must critically think about how such a process would work in reference to trial-and-error. 

Obviously, it would have initially involved a wide range of hemoglobin levels within different hominids or else not enough hominids would have survived the process and this current conversation could not even happen. This process should be fairly simple because the early humans who exhibited anemic or extremely high levels would just die out and leave those within the correct levels alive. This is where we run into trouble. How did natural selection determine that outlying levels of hemoglobin killed these organisms? Evolution from single-celled organisms to what we have today is a process that is said to have occurred over 4 billion years and, therefore, many millions of biologic processes, structures, and mechanism had to be evolving at the same time. Within the same time frame that natural selection is determining the correct levels of hemoglobin in the blood, it might be determining correct hormonal balances, the correct steps of clotting cascade, or any of the other billions of essential mechanisms inside an organism. 

Another problem arises from this inquiry, millions upon millions of biologic mechanisms within the cells and tissues must work correctly just to keep us alive.  At all times, cells are constantly transporting sodium and potassium ions across their membranes using Sodium-Potassium ATPase pumps to maintain resting potential. This process allows our cells to react to changes in the environment, to communicate with other cells, and to help keep cells working. Membrane potential is an essential part of the transportation of neurotransmitters and hormones throughout the body which are used for everything from temperature regulation to energy consumption. An example would be Insulin which is an essential hormone that regulates glucose levels and diabetics can tell you all about its biologic necessity. 

The point of all this scientific jargon is to show that hemoglobin would not have been the only thing being fine-tuned at the time of its development in hominids. Natural selection would have had to single out hemoglobin out of all the other developing biomechanics to determine inadequate levels as the culprit for an organism’s death. That would be highly suspect because human intelligence would be hard-pressed to figure this out let alone an unthinking process such as natural selection. 

Let’s say then that natural selection did indeed determine that inadequate hemoglobin levels killed the organism. We now have a problem with sample size. Any researcher knows that sample size is the key for any experimental trial to determine statistical significance. Sakpal (2010) demonstrates that small sample size can lead to under-estimation and result in a lack of statistical significance.

With all of these processes developing in an organism at one time, the rate of death would have to be extremely high while natural selection is fine-tuning. Thus, with the millions of ways one can die from the failure of compensatory mechanisms, how could the sample size for human evolution ever be large enough? Millions of factors means that millions or even billions of subjects have to be alive at one time and even with these numbers, the sample size of viable organisms would be relatively small leading to statistical insignificance. In the biological selection process, statistical insignificance would prevent natural selection from determining with any certainty the correct hemoglobin range. 

Evolution and natural selection are solid until one has to really think about the difficult questions. Inquiries into the process of trial-and-error which superficially seems like a slam dunk for the theory actually can destroy it. Can evolution really be explained by an unthinking trial-and-error process or is intelligence inherent in the intricacies of biology? In light of the arguments posited in this article, the latter idea makes much more sense.    

References:

Besa, E.C. (2012). Polycythemia Vera. Medscape. Retrieved from http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/205114-overview.

Mayo Clinic. (2011). Hemoglobin Test. Retrieved from http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/hemoglobin-test/basics/definition/prc-20015022.

Merritt, B.Y. (2012). Hemoglobin concentration. Medscape. Retrieved from http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/2085614-overview#aw2aab6b3.  

Sakpal, T.V. (2010). Sample Size estimation in clinical trial. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 1(2), 67-69.

  

                    

Putting God Back Into the Equation

As students of the Word of God, we receive many disparaging remarks about our precious Holy Bible. I can’t tell you how many times individuals have approached me, telling me how man alone wrote the Bible and use the fact that there are countless extraneous books left out to fit an agenda of modern Christianity. The Gospel of Judas, Thomas, Mary Magdalene, Jehoiakim, or whatever person is the flavor of the week in scholarly circles, are constantly brought up as being withheld from apocrypha. Academically, the argument against many of these works can be found in Gnosticism from the mid to late second century, Saint Jerome, or any other historical points. However, one place from which we never seem to argue is that of God’s involvement in dispersion of His Word. All too often, God is taken out of the Biblical equation altogether.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. -2 Peter 1:21 

So, according to His own Word, God is responsible for telling His men what to write. If this is the case, why isn’t God brought up in more Biblical authorship debates? I think many times we humans think on a solely physical plane and can sometimes forget about God’s point of view. Arguing from the perspective that God has decided what books should stay and go in His own Word, might seem like a counterproductive argument against atheistic sentiments. This perspective is not counterproductive because atheists and agnostics argue from purely naturalistic and humanistic positions. Why can’t we as children of the ultimate spiritual Force in the universe argue from spiritual perspectives? Let’s stop taking God out of the equation.

Meet the New Society, Same as the Old Society

Watching shows on the History Channel, Discovery, and sitting through lectures, you get a sense that ancient humanity was far different from how we live today. Similar to many elders in the world today where “everything was simpler in my day,” we yearn for a time when things weren’t so hectic and humans were in tune with nature and the elements around them. Well, I’m here to tell you that many modern researchers have it very wrong about how people acted and lived in the ancient and indigenous world. All too often we see films and read books about the simplicity of Native American culture culminating in one of the most bigoted plot lines running through fiction, “the noble savage.” I have sat through history lectures involving whole classes of apologies to all the indigenous people the “white man” hurt throughout history while they neglect millennia of pre-Columbian war, complex society, and amazing achievements. Sorry, professors but history did not begin with the introduction of European interests.

I have also watched many shows that imply that there is deep meaning behind every work of art and every form of writing ancient man committed to stone. The view of indigenous tribes and the ancients being simpler than modern man and the idea that those who have come before us designed their art to only communicate cultural significance does only one thing: it trivializes the studied civilizations. 

Think about what you do during a typical day. Hopefully you have a job and hopefully you have time to recreate. If there is consideration for what humans do most of the day, one can come to the conclusion that a lot of time is spent doing things that are only important to the person. Individual pursuits are probably the reality for a quarter to one half of the Earth’s population while the other fraction of humanity is just looking to survive. Now I would like to question, “How different do you think our modern reality is to the reality of our forerunners?” It’s probably not much different at all. Do you think the Mayans or Aztecs who left behind their ruins for us to study really sat around considering how future civilizations would interpret the meaning behind their glyphs? No, just like your doodling in class or that painting hanging in the local art gallery, those ancient glyphs and paintings were designed for the enjoyment of the people who created them. 

Visual art has always been a very important aspect of the human experience and, thus, I question the theory that cave paintings had anything extra to tell the observer other than a good story. The chances are great that cave paintings were like graphic novels telling a story through a visual medium. I remember watching a television program discussing the Flood in Genesis and a man whose theory involved a meteorite stated something interesting. He said something akin to, “You have to remember that all of these paintings from the ancient world had a deep rooted meaning.” His statement regarding ancient humanity reminds me of an alien race in science fiction whose world has one language, one religion, and one culture. The idea is just not realistic. We need to start interjecting our modern sensibilities into those in the ancient world. If we are honest in doing so, I think we will realize that those who have come before are really not all that different from us.